Young Stone kills Old Stone and Stone only exists until he gets sent back in time. If both Young Stone and Old Stone die, then the Reckoners' plans go totally sideways. If Old Stone kills Young Stone, then PARADOX!!! WOOOOO!!! HOOOOOOO!!!_________________"I had a whole bunch of advice for you but got ninja'd by newForumNewName. I'd just do what he says." -- 77IM

"While nFNN could be less of a jerk about how he says what he says, what he says is essentially correct." -- ValhallaGH

There is possibly three Stones out there: the young one , the old one from an alternate timeline (250 years old) and a third one from the alternate timeline that live until judment day and came back in time once again in the Devil's tower trilogy (500 years old).

Maybe I should bring back the fourth and fifth Stones, and call the last Plot Point in that book "Family Reunion." _________________Matthew Cutter
Deadlands Big Bug (Brand Manager)
Pinnacle Entertainment Group, Inc.

Y'know, it makes me think that, at some point, one of the Stones is going to kill the other, with only one managing to survive their way into Hell on Earth.

It's an interesting idea, but I always figured that the characters in A Stone and a Hard Place would be the ones to kill one of the Stones. It solves the paradox problem and is a really epic way to end the campaign (plus it seems like Pinnacle is moving more towards player characters shaping the Deadlands world rather than watching the NPCs do it, which in my opinion is a very good thing). Also the fact that Old Stone joined up with his young counterpart in Devil's Tower rather than just shooting his head off makes me think that he wants him to stick around.

The big dangling plot thread that I've been wondering ever since The Quick and the Dead:

Lacy O' Malley wrote:

As for Australia, you don’t want to know what’s up “down under.”

But I do! I really, really do! Please tell us!_________________Wild Card Creator: Any PDF, Any Setting, No Extra Cost.

Y'know, it makes me think that, at some point, one of the Stones is going to kill the other, with only one managing to survive their way into Hell on umEarth.

It's an interesting idea, but I always figured that the characters in A Stone and a Hard Place would be the ones to kill one of the Stones. It solves the paradox problem and is a really epic way to end the campaign (plus it seems like Pinnacle is moving more towards player characters shaping the Deadlands world rather than watching the NPCs do it, which in my opinion is a very good thing).
!

That's pretty much the point when you create an RPG; you want the players to be the main characters who do the job, not the supporting characters who sit back and watch the NPC doing the action.

That's pretty much the point when you create an RPG; you want the players to be the main characters who do the job, not the supporting characters who sit back and watch the NPC doing the action.

Oh, I totally agree! It just seemed like there were a few early Deadlands modules where you sat around and watched the PCs duke it out (most notably Jackie Wells vs. Stone in Fortress of Fear). I would much rather have the characters have a serious chance to kill Stone rather than watching Jackie or even the other Stone do it instead._________________Wild Card Creator: Any PDF, Any Setting, No Extra Cost.

That's pretty much the point when you create an RPG; you want the players to be the main characters who do the job, not the supporting characters who sit back and watch the NPC doing the action.

Oh, I totally agree! It just seemed like there were a few early Deadlands modules where you sat around and watched the PCs duke it out (most notably Jackie Wells vs. Stone in Fortress of Fear). I would much rather have the characters have a serious chance to kill Stone rather than watching Jackie or even the other Stone do it instead.

ANd we don't mention the old habit of Pinnacle to not stat important NPC (like Stone, Raven, Helstromme, etc) because «if you stat it, they will kill it». Why creating big bad NPC if the players just never defeat them? After all, in a RPG, the big bad NPCs are there to offer a challenge to the players and be ultimately defeat by them (like The Flood). Otherwise, it's quite useless to present NPC that the players will never have the opportunity to face and defeat. It's like having shoes that you just can walk with them.

That's pretty much the point when you create an RPG; you want the players to be the main characters who do the job, not the supporting characters who sit back and watch the NPC doing the action.

Oh, I totally agree! It just seemed like there were a few early Deadlands modules where you sat around and watched the PCs duke it out (most notably Jackie Wells vs. Stone in Fortress of Fear). I would much rather have the characters have a serious chance to kill Stone rather than watching Jackie or even the other Stone do it instead.

ANd we don't mention the old habit of Pinnacle to not stat important NPC (like Stone, Raven, Helstromme, etc) because «if you stat it, they will kill it». Why creating big bad NPC if the players just never defeat them? After all, in a RPG, the big bad NPCs are there to offer a challenge to the players and be ultimately defeat by them (like The Flood). Otherwise, it's quite useless to present NPC that the players will never have the opportunity to face and defeat. It's like having shoes that you just can walk with them.

See I for one have never minded not having stats for the for the really big bads. Any game with a metaplot has untouchable characters whoa re larger than life, those who change the coarse of history. The PC are the small time heroes who occasionally manage to reach a larger scale, they might be able to lower fear and stop the Rekners plans, but hey do not have to kill Hellstrom, Stone or Raven to do this.

That's pretty much the point when you create an RPG; you want the players to be the main characters who do the job, not the supporting characters who sit back and watch the NPC doing the action.

Oh, I totally agree! It just seemed like there were a few early Deadlands modules where you sat around and watched the PCs duke it out (most notably Jackie Wells vs. Stone in Fortress of Fear). I would much rather have the characters have a serious chance to kill Stone rather than watching Jackie or even the other Stone do it instead.

ANd we don't mention the old habit of Pinnacle to not stat important NPC (like Stone, Raven, Helstromme, etc) because «if you stat it, they will kill it». Why creating big bad NPC if the players just never defeat them? After all, in a RPG, the big bad NPCs are there to offer a challenge to the players and be ultimately defeat by them (like The Flood). Otherwise, it's quite useless to present NPC that the players will never have the opportunity to face and defeat. It's like having shoes that you just can walk with them.

See I for one have never minded not having stats for the for the really big bads. Any game with a metaplot has untouchable characters whoa re larger than life, those who change the coarse of history. The PC are the small time heroes who occasionally manage to reach a larger scale, they might be able to lower fear and stop the Rekners plans, but hey do not have to kill Hellstrom, Stone or Raven to do this.

Metaplot are interesting (I like the Deadlands metaplot very much) but they are more interesting for collector, not playing marshals and there players. Unless the metaplot give a lot of adventure that permit the PC to influence the metaplot, it's pretty useless (after 16 years, the metaplot of Deadlands is still not complete). When RPG books keep things inaccessible to the marshall and the PC, they somehow miss the shot. Good RPG book should give much material to the marshall so he could create interesting adventure with much freedom before giving teasers of futur metarial. And it should be the entire Marshall call to decide if the PC are small time, medium are big time hero. In no way a marshall should be shy of killing a major NPC if he feel that just help the game.

I guess I just don't see the need for a PC to ever kill off a character like Rastlin, Elminster or say Dunkelzahn (big dragon from Shadowrun). These are larger than live NPC's who are foundations of the game world they live in. These creatures are not meant to be vanquished just by killing them, instead they are tools, used to shape the world they are in.

These creatures are not meant to be vanquished just by killing them, instead they are tools, used to shape the world they are in.

Totally agree. Most really big NPCs in Deadlands are there as story and plot devices. Of course if you want your players to feel really awesome you can totally let them kill them, but as with all the servitors they can only be kill a certain way and the PCs really shouldn't be able to do this without giving away the secret to their death condition.

I guess I just don't see the need for a PC to ever kill off a character like Rastlin, Elminster or say Dunkelzahn (big dragon from Shadowrun). These are larger than live NPC's who are foundations of the game world they live in. These creatures are not meant to be vanquished just by killing them, instead they are tools, used to shape the world they are in.

If I remember correctly, Rastlin was also a playable character . And Elminster is more a wiseman than a vilain so I also don't understand why PC would want to kill him. But in both case if they have to die in the case of a tabletop story, then so be it. I don't say they must be killed by the PC, but that the master (marshall) should have the complete freedom to let the PC clash with them, even let the PCs kill them if the circonstances of the game lead to that. For me I consider that no PC are untouchable and it's the same for NPC. It doesn't meant that the NPC oit's not larger than life; if the players know the NPC from outside the game session (by novels for example) it would make the game even more memorable. ANd it doesn't meant that it should ne an easy task. I just say that RPG books are at there best when thay give a maximum of opportunities to the masters instead of keeping there biggest of NPC in a locker out of reach. After all, once print, the fate of the game is no longer in the hand of the authors but in the hand of the master and the PC.

I can understand what you are saying, and usually I would agree with you ... I guess I just don't view The Four Horsemen and their Harbingers as villains to be defeated by combat, more like forces of nature to be survived and hopefully mitigated.

It feel like to me that Deadlands is more like Dragonlance that the game developers were telling you the story of their game and you as pc were just playing in their world. I can see how this could be frustrating since the npc characters always feel bigger better than pc's. I expected this from the first time I read Deadlands all those years ago and so I view it a little differently than other RPG's.

Note: this was my biggest complaint about old WOD and so Im not quite sure why it has never bothered me in Deadlands

maybe it was the note in the original book saying that they specifically were not releasing stats so they could use those NPC's in future supplements that made me more ok with it.

By the way I did hate the Devils Tower because it made my posse feel secondary and not very important its just that the big 4 have never made me feel that way.

In Devil's tower, the players are taken in sandwich between a Mary Sue and a Vilain Sue (go see www.tvtropes.org for more detail). They are in a race against Stone but they can't kill him, they can't stop him temporarily, they can't put him down, they can't hide from him, they can't run from him so what the hell they can do outside of staying in the backseats and let Jackie run the show? It's one thing to think that they is untouchable NPC when you don't face them directly (they will just keep clashing with there minions and that's quite ok) . But facing directly an untouchable NPC (two untouchable NPC?) it's quite frustrating. Devikl's tower need a very good reworking.

You could solve that problem by killing Jackie at the beginning, or as I did you showed up dieing and told them what they had to do (they better take her gun though). Then it's entirely up to the Players what to do and how to do it.